I am not sure what you find so supprising about it, it is evident in the dicta of the Supreme Court:

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." ( In the 1892 Supreme Court ruling in Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S.)

The court used 87 precedents to support this statement. The Mayflower Compact, The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and virtually all of the Thirteen state constitutions and The Declaration of Independance affirm a reliance of Divine Providence. Now, this often leads one to wonder if they invisioned some kind of a Theocracy and I have long suspected that the Federalist party wanted to do something like that. Jefferson when he wrote the letter to the Danbury Baptists was in conflict with the now defunct Federalist party who wanted to make Congregationalism the Federal church. This might seem like something of a contradiction that they would rely on Divine Providence as the legal authority for establishing our Republic and yet seperate the religious system they cherished but that would be a mistake.

Divine Providence was seen as a law of nature and deists like Franklin (actually a Puritan with eglatarian convictions), this concept of natural law had been elaborated by John Locke who was quoted (some say plagerized) in the Declaration of Independance. The Christian foundation was meant to be a moral force, not a legal or political one. They believed that if religion was protected from the government it would flourish and build a moral concensus that is so vital to a free people.

I like Ol'Sarge's discussion of the extremes in the OP, what I think is necassary is to find the golden mean which balances this whole issue.

First off, Kuni, I am completely baffled by your statements, as they seem contradictory. If you would offer a summation of your position, that would clear things up for me.

I believe that you are dodging the issue. I asked you for examples of Christian principles written into the Constitution; you responded by quoting a Supreme Court opinion from 1892. We're not talking about the Supreme Court, we're talking about the Constitution itself. Moreover, you observe that they cite 87 precedents to support their assertion -- but you do not cite any precedent from the Constitution itself.

We can bounce all over American history quoting various eminent authorities from various times, but this topic is about the Constitution itself. I repeat my question: can you provide any examples of Christian principles written into the Constitution itself?

Just to put this in perspective, who decides whether or not something is Constitutional? What is more, the First Amendment was not written in a vacume they had expressed reasons for wanting that at the top of the page. Finally the Constitution like common law is built on precidence so when you talk about the Constitution you are not talking about a monolithic entity, you are talking about the result of a process that involved hundreds of years and a sting of legal documents and laws that serve as a foundation.

You asked a very general question with a syllogistic twist, you want the wording to be explicitly Christian or the concept of a Judeo-Christian foundation dismissed. What I responded with was a very explicit example of the Judeo-Christian foundation from the Supreme Court. If there is a higher authority for deciding such issues I don't know what it would be.

OK, so here's what we have so far:

You agree that the Constitution itself does not include any embodiment of any Christian principle. You do, however, maintain that 100 years after the Constitution was written, the Supreme Court declared in an opinion that our laws, civilization, and institutions are based upon and embody the teachings of Christ. Note that the Supreme Court in this opinion did not specifically declare that the Constitution itself embodied Christian principles; it confined its comments to vague notions of laws, civilization, and institutions. You also refer to common law prior to the Constitution. But as to the Constitution itself, you agree that there is no embodiment of any Christian principle.

We can debate subsequent interpretations, the statements of various eminent politicians and jurists one way or the other, both before and after the Constitution was written, and so forth, but I think we have reached agreement on one point: the Constitution itself does not embody any Christian principles.

I’m not sure that’s important. Language changes over time. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, 1987 defines Judeo-Christian or Judaeo-Christian as:



According to Random House, the term or phrase wasn’t used until the late 19th Century, more than 100 years after signing of the Constitution. With this in mind, it would be fruitless to try and find any use of “Judeo-Christian” by the founders.

The question as written was:

What was in the mind of the Founding Fathers as they drafted the US Constitution, Secular government or a representative government based on Judeo-Christian “Values?”

If you take the word "Judeo" out, the question reads:

What was in the mind of the Founding Fathers as they drafted the US Constitution, Secular government or a representative government based on Christian “Values?”

The answer I would give, which you seem to agree on, is that the constitution is a still, whether or not we use the word "judeo" secular document.

BTW: I think you need to ask the author of this thread why he included the word "Judeo" in the equation.

That's because it's Sarcasm.

Supreme Court decision of when, where? You sure you’re talking to the right person?


And that would be what? Breathing, eating, sleeping, and deporting the Natives from their homes to create a new nation?

I hear all this talk about “Shared Values” but fail to see any mentioned. It can’t be the belief in the same God; I’ve seen quotes from the Right that say that Allah is NOT the same God as ours; and seeing that it is claimed that both the Arabs and Jews descended from Abraham; we know their God is the same one. Albeit with a different name.

So much for that “Heritage”. Like I said this Judeo-Christian Hybrid is a ‘Johnny come lately’. And the Constitution is VERY, VERY clear on the Government not ‘Establishing a new Religion’.

Correction, Kuni. That statement came directly from The Random House Dictionary of the English Language and is quoted as such along with the 1895-1900 timeframe (which you omitted) for the beginning of its usage. It's been around for at least a hundred years.

As much as I dislike the religious right, this is not an attempt to establish a new religion. Neither is it relevant to this thread.

Okay:

Like I said this Judeo-Christian Hybrid is a ‘Johnny come lately’. And the Constitution is VERY, VERY clear on the Government not ‘Establishing a new Religion’.

And this is important; because what the Right is trying to do is create a new religion, call it Christianity, but leave out anything Christ had to say, and quote Saul and anyone but Christ endlessly for their Dogma. And they are trying to subvert Government into forcing this new Religion on the rest of us under the guise of this so called “Judeo-Christian”.

If the phrase was not used till the late 1800's, then the Founding Fathers obviously didn't think that there was a "Judeo-Christian" based anything. And as that both words existed, individually, at their time. And that ALONE should answer the question the Topic asks about “Judeo-Christian Based”!



And the reason some people started using the Phrase in the late 19th Century probably had more to do with trying to get the Jews to vote for their side, by trying to sound “Inclusive”.

http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-th...e-united-states
. . . Even so, Jews were often persecuted, and were not allowed to vote in some states until the late 19th Century. . .

The Constitution could have been that Judeo anything; considering that in some States, Jews were not allowed to vote.

Kuni, with the utmost respect I must say that you are mistaken. My personal opinion aside, the basis of the American Constitution is rooted in Judeo-Christian teachings and theories. Does that mean, being rooted in Judeo-Christian values, that it is establishing a religion? It most certainly does not.

Judeo-Christian (to put it in context) is not a religion. It is a term that was coined to describe the body of values and concepts in Christianity and Judaism.

A term used to describe the two religion's values does not mean it is a religion at all. It simply means that the two religion's teachings contributed significantly to the formation and creation of the United States government and all of its functions.

VDemosthenes, I'd like to run my challenge by you: can you point to anything in the Constitution that represents an embodiment of Judeo-Christian teachings and theories?

The Code of Hammurabi. (I know, no one liners because no one understands subtly or sarcasm.)


Many of these Judeo Principles are taken directly from other principals. The only claim to fame the ancient Israelites had, was Monotheism.

The Code of Hammurabi was one of the better principals, but it says noting about stoning gays, so the Religious Right in its zeal to get the laws from the Pentateuch passed in our State Legislators and in Washington, needs to attribute other principals, that had noting to do with Judaism, to Judaism. So they can create this false history.

And many seem to forget that another one of these “theories” that we are founded on, is Democracy. And that came to us via Athens, not Jerusalem.

Our principles come from a few sources in the ancient world and I don’t think the Founding Fathers gave 2 bits (1/4 of a piece of 8), to anything Judeo. I’m searching the web for quotes from the Founding Fathers and what they said about Jews, but I’m not finding anything (Too many 2nd amendment articles with ‘first they came for the Jews”)


Our principles come from a many sources and I don’t think the Founding Fathers gave 2 bits (1/4 of a piece of 8) or any thought at all, to anything Judeo. And I have yet to see a quote from any Founding Father that even discusses Judaism and it’s teachings in the same sentence.

It's always a pleasure to be issued a challenge from you. And yes, in fact, I believe I can.




Christian dogma (New Testament I believe) states that all peoples, regardless of their station in life should be permitted the rights to speak freely of the government and disperse the knowledge that they wish. It is an understood truth that assembly would be grand fathered in by Christian teaching of free speech and press.




Christian teachings would dictate not taking the life of a fellow human. However, Jewish teachings say (in paraphrase) it is the right of all people to maintain the safety of their home.




Christ told his disciples not to impose their company on the unworthy when he sent them from his side.




The teachings of both Judaism and Christianity are clear on the fact that property may not be taken without proper compensation and that private property remains as such and is privy to the search of no one.




All people have the right to trail and due process according to the story of Christ being taken before the Roman judges before his execution. Eminent Domain: see above.




Jewish teachings stipulate that all prisoners are still people and that their treatment should reflect as such.




The Old Testament outlines the treatment of Jews as slaves, though the Bible says slavery is acceptable in the Old Testament, the example of the painful treatment of the Jews is Jewish lore and is still valid to this debate.




Christ said to Pharisees that they must render unto Caesar what was his and give to God what was Gods (the subject was income tax).


Perhaps I am mistaken, but perhaps I am not.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DH...i.cgi?id=dv2-31
. . . The modern notion of freedom of speech is assumed to include the right of speech in the governing bodies and the right to petition them, the right to relate and publish debates of these bodies, freedom of public meeting, freedom of correspondence, of teaching, of worship, of publishing newspapers and books. Correspondingly, abuse of freedom of speech includes libel, slander, obscenity, blasphemy, sedition. In the classical world all these aspects appear to be present, including a sort of journalism at the end of the Roman Republic and at the beginning of the Empire. . .

. . . the Carthaginian popular assembly was asked to decide on matters on which the magistrates and the council of the elders had not reached agreement. Indeed, in case of disagreements among the leaders the common people were allowed freedom of discussion. Aristotle remarks: “Anybody who wishes may speak against the proposal introduced, a right that does not exist under the constitutions of Sparta and Crete.” . . .


http://www.studentsfriend.com/sf/part1v3.pdf
Asoka
Centuries after the Indus Valley Civilization died, cities and civilization arose again farther east in the fertile Ganges River valley. India was torn by warfare between kingdoms until the first Indian empire was established in the Ganges valley by the Mauryan dynasty in 324 BC. Its greatest leader was Asoka, who extended his empire to the south in a bloody invasion that conquered all but the southern tip of India. Then Asoka had a sudden change of heart. He publicly announced his grief at the suffering caused by his armies, and he rejected violence. He even gave up hunting and eating meat. Asoka converted to Buddhism, and he spread Buddhist ideals throughout India and to neighboring countries. Legend says Asoka had 84,000 round Buddhist shrines, called stupas, constructed across India. Using Buddhist ideals, Asoka’s government promoted the welfare of the people by kind acts such as digging new wells, building hospitals for people and animals, allowing freedom of religion, and easing harsh laws. It was during Asoka’s reign that sailors from many Asian lands made India the center of a vast southern ocean trading network that extended from China to Africa and the Middle East . . .

http://www.libertystory.net/LSCONNECTLIBER...NATEDINWEST.htm
. . . First of all, natural rights, the idea that individuals are born with equal rights to life, liberty and property. Liberty is undermined to the extent individuals aren't permitted to keep what they earn, and freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are impossible unless people may use their property to worship, speak and publish as they please. Individuals cannot be legitimately deprived of fundamental rights by government or anybody else.

The first thinkers to write about natural rights were ancient Greek Stoic philosophers. Previous thinkers, notably Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, had based their political philosophy on the Greek polis, or city state, since the greatest city state, Athens, was the center of the civilized world. But by the time Aristotle died (322 B.C.), Alexandria, Pergamum and Rome had become important, stimulating broader views. Zeno of Citium (Cypress, c.336-264 B.C.) developed a political philosophy based on the liberty of individuals wherever they might live. Stoic ideas were refined by Chrysippus (281-208 B.C.) who, among other things, recognized the importance of private enterprise. Chrysippus reportedly remarked that a “wise man will turn three somersaults for an adequate fee.”

Stoic ideas were popularized by the Roman orator and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) who dazzled people with his beautiful Latin prose. He crystallized key Stoic ideas as “natural law,” meaning moral standards for judging the legitimacy of government laws. “Following Cicero,” observed intellectual historian Murray N. Rothbard, “Stoic natural law doctrines heavily influenced Roman jurists of the second and third centuries A.D., and thus helped shape the great structures of Roman law which became pervasive in Western civilization.”

During the 17th century, these ideas began to blossom into the political philosophy of natural rights, expressed by such thinkers as John Lilburne (c.1614-1657), Algernon Sidney (1622-1683) and John Locke (1632-1704). These ideas were expanded on by Thomas Paine (1737-1809), Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879), Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) and Ayn Rand (1905-1982) . . .


http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscom...reedomofspe.htm
The modern American conception of freedom of speech derives from the principles of freedom of the press (mainly in the context of political criticism) and freedom of religion as they developed in England, starting in the seventeenth century. The arguments of John Milton and others on the importance of an unlicensed press, and of John Locke and others on religious toleration, were the precursors to the idea of freedom of speech, although also relevant is the much narrower concept of "freedom of speech" as an immunity for prosecution for anything said in the course of parliamentary debate. . .


This one was founded in Pre-History.

This one came about because Soldiers were on low class and the people owning homes were high class and didn’t want them near their daughters. Not Christ’s messages to his Disciples; who weren’t in the armed forces anyways.

VDemonsthenes, I think your examples are grasping at straws, but I'll adress but one example.

Actually, the income tax amendment was No. XVI and it wasn't ratified until 1913, long after the last founding father was laid to rest.

I can't find anything in the constitution that draws per se on Christian beliefs.



I do agree with this statement. Judeo-Christian is descriptive language, not some diabolical, if I may use that term in connecion with religion, plot by the government to form a new religion. If some private group wished to start a group called something like "The Judeo-Christian Fellowship" this would be perfectly ok and legal under the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.

VDemosthenes, your examples of Christian teaching showing up in the Constitution seem a little strained to me. Let me walk through them:

Boy, that's not the Christian dogma I learned as a kid! I don't remember anything from the Bible talking about freedom of speech; can you cite chapter and verse for that? What I do know is that the Church held that truth flows from God, not man, and that man should not question God's truth. Moreover, the Church supported existing governments through the notion of "divine right of kings", holding that good Christians had a moral responsibility to obey their sovereigns. Obviously, criticizing the sovereign wasn't part of this deal. Then there was the whole notion of the Pope speaking ex cathedra, and his infallibility when doing so. And lastly, there is the Church's own handling of free speech issues: burning people at the stake. They didn't give Galileo much freedom of speech, either. So, no, I don't see freedom of speech anywhere in Christian doctrine.


That's a really long stretch, and certainly there's nothing specifically Christian or Jewish about this. Isn't it true that this was a pretty common notion in many cultures, including the Graeco-Roman and Germanic cultures that also provide our heritage?


You're really stretching here. I don't see much connection between the apostles and quartering soldiers in homes.

I never heard that one; I thought Christ was pretty down on private property. Didn't he advise people to give away their belongings and follow him? He condemned materialism pretty strongly; to suggest that he combined this with a strong sense of the inviolability of private property seems a long, long shot. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with searches.


Say what? Jesus was the victim, not the judge in that trial! There's nothing in any of the four Gospels complaining that he didn't get to speak to his lawyer, or that he wasn't tried by a jury of his peers, or anything like that. There was a trial and they executed him -- period.


Again, I think that you're stretching the Bible really hard to get it to fit this. Why don't you provide chapter and verse so we can put your Biblical verse next to the Eighth Amendment and see how they compare.


Sure it's valid, but how is it embodied in the Twelfth Amendment? The Twelfth Amendment says that slavery is illegal. There's nothing in the Bible that says that slavery is illegal or even wrong. So where's the causal relationship?


Well, yes, Christ did say that, but he was dodging the issue of taxation. His point was that he didn't want to have anything to do with worldly matters such as taxation: "My Kingdom is not of this world." That's why I find it so difficult to understand how Christians, who supposedly are following the teachings of a guy who didn't want to have anything to do with worldly issues, try to connect his teachings to worldly issues.

To sum up, I think that you're really stretching the words of the Bible very hard to get them to fit into the Constitution. I just don't see the connections. And you really should provide chapter and verse rather than make vague statements about the "teachings of Christianity", because your version of the teachings of Christianity might not be the same as most people's.

Just to clarify when you mention "the Church" are you talking about the Catholic Church? The US was extremely protestant at the creation of the constitution so I doubt Catholic dogma had much of an influence at the time.

And while you at it; a little Chapter and Verse from the writings of the Founding Fathers on the topic of Judeo-Anything would be nice.

The question that started this thread, while having impeccable grammar, is flawed. It should have differentiated between the different Sectarian components it incorrectly assumed were merged. It does not take into account that the Founding Fathers may have only had their interpretation of “Christian Principals” in mind, and gave no thought to any Judeo inputs.

Agreed, but if we want to include the Jewish part of our Judeo-Christian heritage, then we should include the full Christian part as well. Christianity was expressed through the Catholic Church until the Dark Ages, and Western Christianity till the Reformation. So, from the point of view of the founders, Christianity was 1500 years of Catholicism and 250 years of Protestantism.

Interesting attempts at shoehorning the Constitution into Christian values.


Let's try it the other way, using the infamous Ten Commandments that nobody knows for sure what they are.

Which Ten Commandments?

Okay, number one has to do with only worshipping one god, the right one.

There's nothing in the Constitution upholding this value. Rather, we are free to worship however we decide is proper. That leaves the door open for multiple deities or none whatsoever.

Number two is vague, so I'll go with what I learned as a Catholic student (not a very good one):

Don't take the Lord thy God's name in vain.

Nothing in the Constitution on that value either. Rather, we have free speech, allowing us to curse like sailors in voice and print.

Number three, keeping the Sabbath day, not in the Constitution. I think this might be due to the many different days of the week that can be considered Sabbaths. One might belong to enough religions to have all the days of the week holy.

On to number four:

Honor thy mother and father. Not in the Constitution, and what the heck does "honor" mean? Obey? Bow down to? Give gifts on the parental holidays? Write biographies? I can see how this value never found its way into the Constitution.

Five: Thou shalt not kill.

Kill what? The Constitution does not lay out anything about not killing, other than defending the country and maintaining the general welfare. Letting somebody murder me is most definately against my welfare. Past that, murder laws are made outside the Constitution.

I might point out that murder is a no-no in godless communism as well. This looks like a universal human value.

Six: Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Nothing in the Constitution about marriage or adultery, fornication or shagging. Maybe that's the pursuit of happiness, eh?

Seven: Thou shalt not steal.

Okay, we got one -- if only Christians hold this value. What, other folks hold this value too? Well, looks like another universal human value.

Eight: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Anything in the Constitution about this? I can't find it.

Nine: TSN covet thy neighbor's wife.

Nope, not in the big C either. Does this mean I can covet a stranger's wife?

Ten: TSNCTN goods.

Shoot, if this were to be codified, every suburbanite would be a criminal, not to mention every stock broker, every CEO, every -- well, everyone who wants what someone else has. This is, by the way, the cornerstone of capitalism.

As a result of this exercise, I see no Christian values in the Constitution of the United States. At least no values as stated in the Ten Commandments, based on what I learned as a youth. That just happened to be the Catholic version.

The Constitution does not require us to be compassionate, charitable, or chaste. It does not offer a means to spirituality through vows of poverty or silence. There is nothing in there about going around the world on conversion missions. No mention of any existence other than what we have now (afterlife) can be found.

Most notably, the Resurrection is never mentioned.

That little detail happens to be the foundation of Christianity. No Resurrection, no religion. I can't imagine Christian authors of the Constitution omitting that one, had they actually been thinking of creating a Christian nation.

So, I can safely abandon the notion.

There are some glaring discrepancies to your logic, as many parts of our constitution may not directly include Judeo-Christian values, our justice system surely does.

Let's take our view of # 6 for example. Adultery, while it may not be a crime, has steep consequences in divorce court. Many other nations don't even take these ideals into consideration.

What about number 3??? Keeping the Sabbath isn't included in American society??? Well then why is it that liquor sales are restricted in many states on Sundays??? Why just Sunday?

While maybe direct references to the Bible aren't in our constitution, they are a part of the very thread of our (and previously) western society as we know it. Chrisitanity was a large portion of our government, our culture, and the development of our society.

Consider the fact that in, the middle east for instance, they don't allow liquor sales at all. Any deductive reasoning would conclude that it was due to their religious-based judicial system. This should also apply to the US.

Thou shalt not kill takes a weird twist in the US these days in reference to abortion. We sit and debate the nature of life to the end of the rope...only because of how we as a society believe. Notice- devout Christians are nearly always in opposition?

Parts of American society like liquor laws, divorce law, or "old blue laws" are great examples of how US culture at least has strings attached to "Christian Values".
If this wasn't true, why do we have "weekends" that revolve around Saturday and Sundays as opposed to Mondays and Tuesdays? Why do we have liquor restrictions on Sundays at all? Why do we generally give custody to mothers and penalize adultery in divorce proceedings?? ....
It's all pertinent logic...

Aevens176,

Righto, and if that was what we are debating here, you might have a point.



And some states of the US do not take adultery into great consideration. This is a state issue, not a constitutional one.



Again, a state issue, not a constitutional one.



Okay, save that for another debate where we are talking about the broad influences of things. Native American government had more impact on the Constitution than Christianity did. That's more to what we are debating here.



The ME religious-based judicial system? I don't think so. We don't want it. Nobody likes eyes for eyes, tooths for tooths, hands for stealing, heads for wrong thinking, and being forced to wear black ghost outifits. But I get your drift; I just don't think it makes sense. Just because the ME judicial system went with religion, that's supposed to be why the US judicial system went with religion? I don't see the connection here. Please explain the logic further, if inclined to do so.

In any event, the judicial system is outlined in the Constitution. What that judicial systems does from there is fine, as long as it does not contradict the Constitution. It can, however, contradict the Bible, as has often been the case.



Not to mention wars of dubious defense value and capital punishment, which devout Christians ought to be in opposition.



Don't know about you, but my weekends have been up for grabs ever since going non-exempt. But besides, the Constitution does not set aside weekends. State, county and local governments, and businesses set them aside. This has always been the case.

And you might give some credit to the federal labor laws on this, you know, the 40-hour workweek that was not common before this legislation? That came from unions, the evil secular things that they are.

Sometimes I wish those blue laws were still enforced. They never existed in Colorado. Guess miners, farmers and ranchers didn't give a hoot. But then we're a hundred years younger than most other states, so things had moved away from religious persecution.

Are you aware that in some states, you can buy as much wine and beer as you like any day of the week? Anyway, it's up to the states again, not the Constitution.



Because the Bible tells us so? Maybe, but not the Constitution. Mothers tend to get custody due to, well, that's up to the judge, isn't it? It depends. Some mothers do not get custody because they are not able to care for the kids. That's pretty practical, isn't it? Has nothing to do with the Bible.

See above about adultery.



Indeed, and the logic is this: It is left up to the states how religious they want to make their laws. Some are more religious than others, and if you look at the colonial period, some colonies were more intolerant of incorrect religions than others. That's why religion in law was left up to the states, not put into the Constitution.

Bottom line: Religion is not part of the Constitution of the United States. It was drafted to be religious-neutral on purpose, but the states can get as ME-like as they want, within certain restrictions that are in the Constitution of the United States of America.

One of the big ones is freedom of religion. If a state law gets too religious, it will likely be declared unconstitutional. Of special note here is the Colorado Amendment 2 that attempted to make it legal to discriminate against homosexuals.

Got shot down in the USSC. Wasn't surprised.

OK, so we can at least agree that the Constitution itself embodies nothing from the Judeo-Christian heritage. The things you cite that are traceable to Judeo-Christian beliefs are pretty minor, wouldn't you agree? Moreover, even they are not solely Judeo-Christian. For example, the notion of taking off one day a week goes back to pre-Christian times. Yes, there were months, and many cultures broke months down into fourths: weeks. I've never been able to track down the origins of the tradition of taking a day off each week; while it is surely part of both the Jewish and the Christian traditions, they might well have gotten it from somewhere else, most likely the Mesopotamian civilizations. It's a fine point of history, of course.

The penalization of adultery is also nothing unique to Christianity. Almost all cultures have some sort of penalties for adultery. There's nothing special about Christianity here.

I agree wholeheartedly that American culture has very strong Christian elements in it, and those elements have profoundly influenced the development of American civilization. I draw the line at the claim that Christianity is built into the Constitution.

The First Amendment is an expression of Judeo-Christian values and the embodiment of Christian principles which is beside the point of the question for debate. What was in the mind of the Founding Fathers is a question with regards to what it was they intended to preserve and they were explicit that it was Judeo-Christian values. I give you the words of George Washington's Farewell Address:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

(President George Washington's Farewell Address, September 19, 1796)

Virtually every President since Washington has spoken highly of religion which is one of our great traditions. Bush when speaking about Islam embraced Islam as a kindred spirit calling them people of the book. It would be very much out of character for American politicians, Justices and Jurors to speak otherwise. It might interest you to know that there were State Churches long after the Constitution was ratified and it caused no turmoil for those of other religious groups.

The Trinity case was explicate, tacit and legally binding with regards to the precedents that demonstrate the our government embodies Judeo-Christian values. There are dozens of quotes from virtually every one of the framers of the Constitution the it was the preservation of Judeo-Christian values that was at the heart of our Constitutional Republic. I do agree that the First Amendment does not establish Judeo-Christian religious systems as a Federal entity with political or legal authority. However, the expressed vision of the Founding Fathers was to establish religion as a moral force that preserved our sacred right to freedom of worship.

I must be missing something here. What exactly are these Judeo-Christian “values” that are specific only to this Hybrid Religion that no other Religion has; and that our Justice System is based on?

The ‘Code of Hammurabi’ has been pointed out to you; yet you seem to want to skip forward in time and claim the 2nd floor is the foundation.

http://www.acvcc.state.al.us/asads/conceptoflaw.htm
B. The Development of the Concept of Law

A complete and accurate understanding of the concepts inherent in our American criminal law system can only be attained by a review of its history, philosophy, and development. Modern criminal law is the result of a long evolution of laws that have attempted to deal with and define deviant behavior in Society.

b.1 Code of Hammurabi

The Code of Hammurabi is considered one of the first known attempts to establish a written code of conduct. King Hammurabi ruled Babylon at approximately 2000 B.C. During that period, Babylon was a commercial center for most of the known and civilized world. Since its fortune lay in trade and other business ventures, the Code of Hammurabi provided a basis for order and certainty essential for commerce. The Code established rules regarding theft, sexual relationships, interpersonal violence, and other issues. It was intended to replace blood feuds with a system sanctioned by the state. . .

. . . b.2 Early Roman Law

Another important milestone in the development of American law was early Roman law which was derived from the Twelve Tables, written about 450 B.C. These tables were a collection of basic rules relating to conduct of family, religious and economic life. Early Roman legions conquered England in the middle of the first century. Roman law, customs, and language were forced upon the English people during the next three centuries of Roman rule. . .

. . . It contained elements of both our civil and criminal law and influenced Western legal theory into the Middle Ages.


b.3. The Bible

It is unclear when the fifth book of the Old Testament, Deuteronomy, was written, and indeed, as "oral history," the very first version was not written at all (it was probably written for the first time in about 100 B.C.). Deuteronomy instructs that with respect to certain crimes, the penalty shall be ". . eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Chapter 19, Verse 15). Because the rabbinic tradition taught that this penalty was not to be interpreted literally and that what the Biblical instruction really meant was that a victim of an assault or other crime should receive from the criminal the value of an eye, or the value of a foot, arguably Deuteronomy presents the first more formalized scheme of victim restitution since the Code of Hammurabi.

b.4. The Legal System in England

Prior to the Norman conquest of 1066 A.D., the legal system in England was very decentralized. There was little written law except for crimes against society. As a society, England had forgotten or moved away from the teaching of the Code of Hammurabi, and crimes during this period were again viewed as personal wrongs. Compensation was paid to the victim or his/her family for the offense. If the perpetrator failed to make payments, the victim's family could seek revenge resulting in a blood feud. For the most part during this period, criminal law was designed to provide equity to what was considered a private dispute.

The Norman Conquest under William the Conqueror established royal administrators who rode circuit to render justice. These royal judges would use local custom and rules of conduct as a guide in rendering their judgments. This system, known as stare decisis (Latin for the phrase "to stand by the decided law"), would have far reaching effects on modern American criminal law. . .



Because Conservative Judges are not interpreting the Constitution properly and the current Administration is helping them by trying to roll back the ‘Age of Reason’.

Come back in another 200 years and by then we will hopefully be free from Religion and the superstitious minds that are trying to foist their beliefs on the rest of us. It’s a long road, and one the Founding Fathers knew could not be followed in a day. In their day, Religion still played a large role in people’s outlooks, so they could not come out in public and speak their minds; but their private writings leave their intent clear.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm
. . . Jefferson says he was a "Materialist" (letter to Short, Apr. 13, 1820) and a "Unitarian" (letter to Waterhouse, Jan. 8, 1825). Jefferson rejected the Christian doctrine of the "Trinity" (letter to Derieux, Jul. 25, 1788), as well as the doctrine of an eternal Hell (letter to Van der Kemp, May 1, 1817). Further, Jefferson specifically named Joseph Priestly (English Unitarian who moved to America) and Conyers Middleton (English Deist) and said: "I rest on them ... as the basis of my own faith" (letter to Adams, Aug. 22, 1813). Therefore, without using the actual words, Jefferson issued an authentic statement claiming Deism as his faith. The 1971 (ninth edition) Encyclopedia Britannica, 7:183, states the following: "By the end of the 18th century deism had become a dominant religious attitude among upper-class Americans, and the first three presidents of the United States held this conviction, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence." Therefore, it is appropriate to quote the two following paragraphs from the correspondence of President Thomas Jefferson wherein he wrote specifically about deism, as taught by Jesus.

"In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, & even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient [ancient] philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, . . . . I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark . . . that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers." (Ltr. to Joseph Priestly, Apr. 9, 1803.) . . .

I think you're being a bit too clever here. First off, while the topic is indeed what was in the minds of the framers, we can only know that by their actions. So looking at the result of their actions is the only way to divine their intentions.

I do not deny that Christianity played a large role in the lives of many Americans at that time. My concern is whether they intended to embody Christianity itself, or any of its unique and fundamental tenets, into the Constitution. And I think I and several others have now demonstrated that the Constitution embodies no specifically Judeo-Christian values, and we've done it backwards and forwards. (Both looking at the Constitution for Judeo-Christian values, and looking at the Ten Commandments for something in the Constitution.) But again, if you can line up a quote from the Bible with a quote from the Constitution, and show that the latter embodies the former, and that this is special to the Bible, then let's see it.


Perhaps that's what some of the framers intended, but that's not what they actually wrote into the Constitution. If they had wanted to establish religion as a moral force in the Constitution, then they would have said so. But they didn't. Indeed, they said the opposite of that: Congress shall enact no law respecting an establishment of religion. They did not want the federal government to do anything with respect to religion. It's all there in plain black and white. Trying to insinuate some sort of religious intention in defiance of the plain text of the First Amendment is sophistry. I'll point out that the Roe decision has garnered a great deal of criticism for reading a right to privacy in the Constitution that many people argue isn't really there. I suggest that you are reading a Christian intent into the Constitution that not only isn't there, but is flatly contradicted by the text of the First Amendment.

Phaedrus, I'll accept the conclusion that George Washington thought this way, but that leaves the question begging: What did the other FFs think? Did they agree with Washington? And did they have major inputs into the drafting of the Constitution?

So I think you'd need to restate your conclusion as such:

"However, the expressed vision of George Washington was to establish religion . . . ."

What were the visions of Hamilton, Franklin and the others? Here's a link to a brief rundown on who framed the Constitution:

US Constitution Framers

Over fifty Founding Fathers. I bet they all had their own ideas and opinions on nearly everything, but that's just speculation. Coming to your sweeping conclusion requires quite a bit more work, at least one book's worth, possibly several volumes. Or one can simply look at the Constitution and discover that it outlines a secular government, letting the states decide how far they want to go with codifying religion into their societies.

Our freedom of worship does not come with qualifiers, such as freedom to worship as long as it's worshiping the Judeo-Christian ways. Did some of the founders want this sort of thing in there? Of that I have little doubt. Apparently though, the way the First Amendment is worded won out over any other restrictions on the freedom. This indicates that the majority of the FFs wanted the freedom to be open to religions based on other ideas.

Maybe we should have a Tuesday Night Scavenger hunt. We could give a prize to the first one to find any of these mislabeled ‘Judeo-Christian’ principles that the Constitution is based on. We have yet to see any of these principles that are inherent only to this J-C paradigm, and not lifted from other sources.


So far the only examples I’ve seen so far, qualify for the LoL, Lord of Loud, trophy. Awarded for perverting the truth so zealously, yet so transparently, insulting one's intelligence, so to persuade only the most ardent partisan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





I give you Benjamin Franklin's words to the plea for prayer that resolved the crisis in the Constitutional Covention that went from June 19 to July 26 and nearly derailed the entire process:


"In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard; and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need [His] assistance?

"I have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little partial, local interests, our projects will be confounded and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, or conquest.

"I, therefore, beg leave to move:

"That hereafter prayers, imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service." (Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention of June 28, 1787)

They did not establish religion but the intent was to preserve it. This is crystal clear from their most important work, the framing of the Constitution of the United States.



That is the first time I have been accused of being too clever and I am so flattered I am not going to reply. I am enjoying the compliment far too much to muddy the waters with a retort.

"In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard; and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need [His] assistance?

"I have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little partial, local interests, our projects will be confounded and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, or conquest.

"I, therefore, beg leave to move:

"That hereafter prayers, imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service." (Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention of June 28, 1787)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

My reply:


With the possible exception of the reference to Babel, Franklin's call for prayer was completely generic. He does not specify a Jewish or Christian God. It does not matter what any of the framers believed on a personal level. They did not put it into the Constitution. Their personal beliefs are totally irrelevant.

The referance to Providence is also important and the substance of his words with regards to a reliance on God's soverign rule in the affairs of men. It is such an ironic concept, seperate religion from government and it will preserve the genuine article of faith and it's moral influence. When they were in trouble before the Revolution they turned to God in prayer and when they were in trouble in framing the Constitution they turned to God in prayer. In Benjamin Franklin's words:

"Have we now forgotten that powerful Friend?"

The key to this is Divine Providence and they did not establish religion, they sought to preserve this essential element of American governance by seperating it. Isn't that ironic, I think it is brillant in it's wisdom and simplicity.

You are grasping at straws in an attempt to keep a fallacious argument alive. Franklin was but one of many who signed the Constitution. Again, "Divine Providence," even if it relevant--which it is not, is generic not Judeo-Christian or just Christian (to make Kuni happy ) as specified in the question for debate. This is totally irrelevant to what came out of Philadelphia in 1787. I believe this is called revisionist history.

Not me, yourself.

Telling the truth will lead to the elevator going up, instead of down, come judgment day.

And I’m starting to think that one of these ‘Judeo-Christian Principles’ that we’re STILL waiting to see; is lying. Maybe that’s what those on the Right are talking about? Does a day even go by when the echo chamber isn’t bombarding us with falsehoods? One recent example is the claim that the SIC Reports said that Wilson’s wife recommended him; when in fact the SIC Report does not say that. It is mentioned in a Partisan Footnote by one Senator, not the Committee. And the CIA says she didn’t.

Given the lack of examples of these ‘Principles’; I can only guess that it is lying they are talking about. That and Greed, Theft etc.

It wandered off-topic on the last question.

As that no one has been willing to give us any of these Values that are explicitly ‘Judeo-Christian” and don’t have a foundation in other systems; there can be no honest answer to “ or a representative government based on Judeo-Christian “Values?”, as there appears to be no such thing.

Like I have been trying to tell everyone, the seperation of church and state is a Judeo-Christian value. When Jefferson spoke of the 'wall of seperation' he was speaking to the Danbury Baptists in language they would have recognized as theological. Some of the delegates wanted religious tests and the Federalists wanted a Federal church with real political power. The only way this could be resolved is to make the Constitution religiously neutral. The same thing had been going on in natural science for well over a hundred years and one of the natural laws that was recognized was Divine Providence.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." (The Declaration of Independance)

They had a deep and abiding suspicion that the honors and emulations of political power would be a corrupting influence on religion. Catholics, Jews, Quakers and even Baptists had suffered the fate of religious minorities when a group with larger numbers has political power. You might recall that the Thirty-Years War and Englands Civil war was over Political Protestantism and Catholicism. These men were very much aware of the danger of putting political power in the hands of professional clergy.

The question in the OP is a false dichotomy, they sought to preserve the best of both the secular state and Judeo-Christian values.

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

No, it’s common sense.

And any reading of the Old Testament, the Judeo one, clearly shows that Religion and Politics were intertwined. And isn’t Queen Elizabeth also the “Supreme Governor of the Church of England”? What kind of Christian Value is that? And let’s not forget the Spanish Inquisition.



Study Guide: The Roots of American Democracy
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd8.htm
Myth: "The U.S. Constitution is based on the Bible."

Fact:The founders' main defense of the Constitution – The Federalist Papers - never mentions the Bible, but has nearly 30 references to pagan Greece and Rome. . .

I agree with you, phaedrus, that Christianity holds to the separation of church and state ("render unto Caesar"). And you seem to be arguing that the role of religion is not in the Constitution or the laws, but in the general value system of the people. Even this, however, I would challenge, because I do not believe that religion is necessary for morality. That is, an atheist can be every bit as moral as a believer. So, even though you are agreeing with the basic premise I have been arguing, I'm sorry to say that I can't even agree with you on the mildest expression of your belief. I find myself in the embarrassing position of being an uncompromising bully. Perhaps I could get a job as ambassador to the UN.

Sorry about that, everyone -- it was a cheap shot (but a funny one!)

What I am arguing from the statements from the people that created the Constitution is that religion is essential. It is directly tied to morality in the minds of Washington and Adams ,and what is more, Franklin pleaded with the assembly to seek God in prayer. Ok, the wording is deliberatly secular, but the intent was obviously religious. Think what you like, in the minds of the Framers of the Constitution the preservation of the genuine article of religion was foremost in their minds and that is why the First Amendment was added. They were explicit in this regards and it would be the height of arrogance to attibute the First Amendment to be anything other then a belief that religion was essential to morality and democracy. Now you can disagree that religion is essential to morality but do you have a thread of proof that the Framers of the Constitution would?

Okay, here's some thread of proof:

Founding Fathers Not Christian

What we have here is a classic case of the premise shaping the research to fit the argument. As such, either side of the debate can dredge up quotations that support the particular side's premise. Fine, but what was really going on back during the Continental Congress?

It looks to me that the Founding Fathers were very complex critters living in a period when conventional wisdoms were being challenged all the time. If one wants to interpret this to mean that they were religious in some manner, I think that's likely true, although not in the conventional sense of the term. These folks were seeking something beyond the pulpit.

They were, after all, revolutionary folks.

The First Amendment protects religions from government dominance. As such, religions must not dominate government either. You can't have one without the other, unless the religion fully embraces all of the Constitution. I know of none that do, at least the established religions. Maybe Unitarian, but that to me isn't as much of a religion as a gathering of seeking people, seeking perhaps not so much the spiritual Truth as knowledge and wisdom.

I'm pretty sure that this stuff was going on in many, if not most, of the FF's minds. Now, did that have an effect regarding how the Constitution turned out? I am sure it did. However, my take is that no religious dogma (value) found its way into the Constitution.

Religious political organizations are not reflected in the Constitution, and as pointed out earlier, some citizen rights contradict religious dogma, most notably the freedom of speech.

As a citizen, I am free to criticize diety(ies) and dogmas. As a believer, I am not.

Anyway, here's a good starting place for studying how the Founding Fathers ticked:

Wikipedia on the Founding Fathers

These were fascinating and admirable people, unlike certain types these days who manipulate historical information to persuade, then exploit.

Nothing new about that, and I'm pretty sure that the Founding Fathers were aware of the situation. They were pretty smart cookies.

Aha! Something we can agree on! Yes, I agree that the majority of framers probably held that religion was a vital component in maintaining social peace. There are lots of statements in their writings to that effect. Even Jefferson, theist that he was, had nice things to say about the social utility of religion. So, hooray and huzzah, we agree at last!

While I agree that the FF's attempted to keep religion out of the constitution of the United States; articles can be written till the end of time about whether they were religious or not, but the proof is in the pudding- so to speak. Here are some quotes directly out of the mouths of the men themselves...
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1777/fathers.html

Religion and Christianity were a large thread in the cloth that built our country. I've given examples of state constitutions that directly mention "God" in their texts. Pennsylvania's consitution, for instance states "We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance". South Carolina says "grateful to God for our liberties" in their Constitution. Where exactly is the ambiguity???

This thread is to address whether the US constitution is secularly or Judeo-Christian based. That being said, I don't believe that the men that drafted this document intended to impose on the faith of future generations, but the were in fact faith based men. (as was shown in the previous link-directly from their own quotes as opposed to an article written hundreds of years later)

When you consider why plymouth rock happened, the nature and history of religion (especially Christianity) in the United States; it's hard to ignore the fact that our nation's history is riddled with judeo-christian values, and judicial decisions that reflect biblical ideals (consider that the 10 commandments were in the supreme court)...

While the language of the Constitution does not explicitly state Judeo-Christian values the intent was obviously religious rather then secular. The language of 'secular purpose' did not make it's way into the dicta of the Supreme Court untill 1947 (see Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947))

"The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment.

This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education, in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.''

Findlaw article on religion

The intention of the Founding Fathers was to preserve and encourage religion but now the Supreme Court insists on secular purpose. This kind of secular exclusivism is a modern interprutation that is contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers. It was judical activists that introduced the secular intent into the First Amendment, not the Founding Fathers. The were explicit that they intended for the First Amendment to encourage religion since it was in their mind essential to the moral concensus.

All right, let's go along with this. Say the FFs actually thought that way in the majority (which has never been demonstrated). Wouldn't it make sense then that the First Amendment would encourage a moral consensus, in another word, agreement? If so, then would it not make more sense to establish a national religion? Codify the Sabbath day nationally as only Sunday? Reject all the false (i.e., non-Christian) faiths? Why encourage a wide diversity of faiths by allowing religious freedom?

I mean, it opened the doors to Unitarianism, and in fact, some of the FFs were Unitarian during the composition of the Constitution. Unitarianism is a very liberal metaphysical philosophy. Here's some background:

Unitarian Philosophy

Contrary to the First Commandment of Christianity, the US has a wide diversity of churchs, temples, mosques and other religious places of worship. Do you suppose that the FFs had this in mind, the wide diversity of faiths that we have now? How can a nation possibly be this tolerant of faith diversity without having a secular government that stays neutral on the issue of how one worships?

If the First Amendment is based on Christian principles, then how come the Wiccas are allowed to practice in the US?

Wicca Background

Again, the Christian principle (and foundation of the faith) that there is only one god, made up of a trinity of entities -- one of whom rose from the dead -- and that worship of the manifestation or graven images is a no-no is not reflected in the Constitution, especially the First Amendment. The First Amendment allows for a vast array of religious beliefs, including contradictory beliefs. The two principles expressed here are freedom and diversity, and I don't see how these are Christian principles.

As secular principles though, I can see why the FFs went this way. Without freedom and diversity, it would be impossible for a spiritual seeker to do any investigation into the nature of God (or whatever capitalized name fits in). It would be impossible to exercise free will to embrace the goodness of God. We would all be forced to pretend that we have real faith due to restrictive and homogenizing laws.

Now each organized faith has its own restrictive and homogenizing laws, so that's supposed to build moral fortitude in people. I can see the FFs having this take on things, but what the First Amendment does is let us have choice in what restrictive and homogenizing religious laws we want to take on, if any. We are also free to select only the secular laws to follow, you know, stop at red lights and the such. Don't go around killing people or stealing things. Pay our taxes, educate our children, keep the house up to code, mow the lawn, keep the car running as clean as it can, don't sneak into movie houses without paying.

While doing so, we are also free to ignore certain religious laws that we might have taken on. We can exaggerate the benefits of a product (lying), overcharge for a service (stealing), lust after another man's wife (lust), disrespect our parents (flipping the bird), and so on. In secular law, these things aren't necessarily moral wrongs, but in some religious law they are.

This all leads to a logical disconnect if trying to demonstrate Christian values in the Constitution: If you go against a Christian value, say by selling cheap crap for too much money (lying and stealing), who is going to do the punishment? In Christian values, it is God who gets the pleasure. In secular law, it is the legal system. The seller of cheap crap might never serve jail time or be fined, but the seller might end up in hell, according to Christian philosophy. The Constitution doesn't leave anything up to God. If a thief and lier steps over legal limits, then whammo! The shmuck serves hard time and/or pays stiff penalties. At least that's the way things are supposed to work with secular law. Religious law -- well, let's just say if you have the faith, you take the results -- no exceptions.

Conversely, someone might lie to get a job, but the religious morality could be okay because this person is trying to make a living, support children, be a good citizen. The secular law might allow taking the job away if the lie is discovered, and if the lie is big enough. For example, and this has happened, one might lie about having a medical degree to get a doctor's job. Well, that example is likely immoral to all gods and courts. But what about the employee who fibbed about past experiences to impress the hiring folks? Maybe it was just a stretch in how important the job hunter was in the last position.

The split between religious and secular values is in the Constitution by necessity, and ought to be in any government document of all free societies. If the FFs were not aware of this, then the First Amendment should not exist.

I am not going to do an expositive response to AM's posts (nicely done btw) but there are a few points I did want to address. In the dicta of the Trinity case where Brewer made the statement that we are a Christian nation he cited the 87 precedence. I am considering a spinoff thread in the History forum but here I am interested in discussing in what sense the Constitution is based on Judeo-Christian values.

The Puritans had a vision of America being a 'city on a hill' and the language of the Mayflower Compact is thoughly religious. What has to be understood is that they recognized that there were two kinds of covenants. There were covenants between God and man and there were covenants between man and man, the Mayflower Compact was the latter. This was more fully developed by Hobbes and Locke who never advocated any kind of theocratic political system even though Locke recognized ancient Israel as the only legitamate theocracy.

From the Mayflower Compact:

"Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. " (The Mayflower Compact, 1620)

Notice the religious enthusiasm for the establishing of a 'body politic'. This is viewed by some to be Americas first Constitution. The Constitution itself is not a monlithic entity but the culmination of a series of legal political covenants. Here are a few others, I apologize for the typos in the quote but I didn't feel confortable correcting them since I don't know if they are typos or transcript errors in the original document:

Fundamental Orders of Connecticut

"Forasmuch as it hath pleased the All-mighty God by the wise disposition of his divyne pruvidence so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Harteford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and uppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing;"

Notice the mention of divine providence, this is a key concept. This concept of divine providence would eventually make it into the language of the Declaration of Independance.

"And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments:

Notice that civil and religious liberty is recognized as foundational.

The Northwest Ordinance (1787)

"ART. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. "

Try to impose that kind of legislation today and it will be struck down by the Supreme Court. The importance of religion is said to be essential so education will be forever encouraged. In the modern dicta they are considered utterly seperate and this secular version is absent in these legal documents.

The argument that these men were deists does have a germ of truth. When we talk about the intentions of the FF we should also consider the effects. The following quote, submitted as a post script, discussed this issue as a danger of democracy.

"I believe pantheism to be one of those most fitted to seduce the human mind in democratic ages. Against it all who abide in their attachment to the true greatness of man should struggle and combine." (Democracy In America Alexis De Tocqueville)

phaedrus, I don't understand the point you're making. Are you claiming that the Constitution is more Christian that it was written to be because the founders had a legacy of very Christian precedents? That seems a bit of a stretch; after all, they were trying to make a break with the past -- that's what revolution is all about. Part of their heritage, indeed a more recent part of their heritage than the Mayflower Compact, were the Salem witch trials, but I don't think anybody will suggest that they had some secret itching to include witch-hunting in the Constitution.

I'd like to step back and look at the forest. Why are we so intent on debating the precise frame of mind and intent of the founders? I have the feeling that the hidden reasoning, on both sides, is that if the Constitution were "really" Judeo-Christian, then we should have more Judeo-Christian values reflected in our laws. This strikes me as a devious and indirect path to follow, because we already have two direct ways of messing around with our set of laws:

1. Make laws. That's what Congress is for. If Congress wants to make laws that reflect Judeo-Christian values, well and good; so long as they don't violate the First Amendment, they're welcome to pass such laws.

2. Interpret laws through the judiciary. But the judiciary doesn't deal in vague notions of what ought to be; (that would be <horrors> an activist judiciary). The judiciary has to work with the Constitution as it is written. The Constitution doesn't say anything about Judeo-Christian values, so the judiciary can't put those into the laws.

Now, I realize that some people will try to intepret the First Amendment in such a way as to reverse its meaning. They claim that the First Amendment was not really "meant" to banish religion from public life; it was only meant to forbid an official religion. The wording of the First Amendment doesn't permit that kind of wriggle-room.

I realize that I might be drifting from the topic, and so perhaps it's time to start another topic on this broader issue -- unless you feel that we have not fully addressed the original issue of the intent of the founders with respect to Judeo-Christian values. You must admit, we're starting to get into the obscure.

This is simply not true and I have did extensive reading on the subject of the Witch Hunts of Salmetown during the summer of 1692. Some of the people who were hung were Christians and included was a Minister. If you are interested I started a thread in the History forum some time ago here The Salemtown Witchhunts of 1692. There were a number of possible causes offered and not one of them included overtly religous language in legal doc